Explore 56 related cases • Click to navigate
Cited for the principle that what is or is not reasonably foreseeable is determined by the facts of the case.
Cited in Mukheiber v Raath as part of the development of the test for culpa in South African law.
The court applies the ordinary test for establishing negligence as articulated by Holmes JA requiring foreseeability and failure to take reasonable steps to…
The test for negligence enunciated by Holmes JA at 430 E - F is applied to determine the issue of negligence.
Cited for the test to determine negligence, though the court found it unnecessary to apply this test given its finding on wrongfulness.
The court applied the classic two-part test for negligence (foreseeability and taking reasonable steps) from Kruger v Coetzee to determine whether the…
Applied for the principle that liability for negligence arises if there is reasonable foreseeability of harm and failure to take reasonable steps to guard…
The court applied the test for negligence postulated in this case, which requires foreseeability of harm and that reasonable steps would be taken to guard…
Cited for the principle that reasonableness depends on the facts of each particular case.
The court applies the classic test for negligence as formulated in this case, namely whether a diligens paterfamilias would foresee the reasonable possibility…
This court applied Kruger's test to establish the existence of negligence, requiring foreseeability and preventability by a diligens paterfamilias.
Court applies the test for negligence laid down in this case to determine whether the respondent attorney was negligent in failing to establish the depositor's…
The court applied the standard test for determining negligence formulated in this case, namely whether a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the…
Applied for the test of whether defendant's conduct conforms with the standard expected of the reasonable person in the circumstances.
Court applies the test for negligence formulated in this case, involving first a determination of foreseeability and second a comparison between what steps a…
Cited for the general principles of delictual liability in the context of negligence.
The test formulated by Holmes JA for determining negligence is applied to assess whether the teachers foresaw the reasonable possibility of Michael being…
Applied to state the test for determining negligence: whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would foresee the reasonable possibility of…
Court applies the test for negligence set out in this case at 430E-F to determine whether the road workers were negligent.
The test for negligence requiring foreseeability and reasonable preventability is applied by the court to assess whether the respondents were negligent.
Applied for the established test for negligence in delictual liability.
Applied for the principle that negligence involves a duty to take steps to guard against damage where a reasonable person would foresee such damage.
Applied to set out the test for negligence in South African law.
The court applies the test for negligence as set out in Kruger v Coetzee: whether a reasonable person would have foreseen harm, would have taken steps to…
Cited for the proposition that there may be doubt as to whether the mere presence of an ill-fitted or loose carpet would give rise to an inference that the bus…
The court cites this case for the principle concerning when the diligens paterfamilias should take precautions against real or immediate possibilities of harm.
Cited for the dictum of Holmes JA that the issue of negligence involves a twofold inquiry: whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable and whether the…
Cited as the source of the classic test for negligence regarding whether a person is required to act to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm and what is required…
The court applies the classic three-part test for negligence formulated in this case to determine whether the teacher was negligent in failing to ensure the…
Cited for the three-part test for negligence involving foreseeability, reasonable steps to guard against harm, and failure to take such steps.
Court applied the well-known test for negligence set out in this case, requiring foreseeability and reasonable steps to guard against harm.
Cited and applied for the classic test for negligence requiring foreseeability and whether reasonable steps were taken to guard against harm.
The court applies the test for negligence requiring a reasonable person to foresee the reasonable possibility of his or her conduct injuring another person and…
Court applies the test for negligence articulated by Holmes JA, which requires that a diligens paterfamilias would foresee the reasonable possibility of…
Cited for setting out the test for negligence, including reasonable foreseeability and whether a diligens paterfamilias would take reasonable steps to guard…
Cited for the classic statement of the test for negligence.
Applied the well-established test for negligence formulated by Holmes JA, namely whether a reasonable person would have foreseen harm and taken steps to guard…
The court applies the reasonable person test (diligens paterfamilias) for determining negligence, requiring foreseeability of harm and reasonable steps to…
The test for negligence formulated in Kruger v Coetzee, involving foreseeability and reasonable steps to guard against harm, was applied to determine whether…
The court cites this case for the classic test for negligence formulated by Holmes JA, requiring foreseeability and reasonableness of preventative steps.
Cited as the foundational authority establishing the two-stage test for negligence requiring foreseeability of harm and a failure to take reasonable guarding…
Applied the test for negligence requiring foresight and reasonable steps to guard against harm.
Applied for the test of negligence requiring foreseeability and reasonable steps to guard against foreseeable harm.
Applied at 430F–G for the established test for negligence in delict, based on the foreseeability and preventability of harm by a reasonable person.
Cited for the general proposition that to establish negligence, the person must foresee the possibility of harm and fail to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
Court applies the leading test for negligence formulated in this case, requiring foreseeability of harm and failure to take reasonable steps to guard against…
Cited for the traditional formula for determining negligence involving foreseeability and reasonable steps to guard against harm.
Cited for the general principle of the test for determining negligence in delict.
The court applies the three-leg test for negligence formulated in this case, specifically the foreseeability test stated at page 430E-F.
The court applies the test for negligence from this case which rests on reasonable foreseeability and reasonable preventability of damage and failure to act…
Cited for the general test of delictual liability regarding foreseeability and reasonable steps to avert harm.
Cited for the test of culpa in the Aquilian action relating to foreseeable harm and reasonable steps to prevent it under the law of delict.
Applied to set out the test for negligence at common law: a reasonable person would foresee the reasonable possibility of injury and would take reasonable…
Cited for the two elements of negligence in delict: foreseeability of harm and failure to take reasonable steps to guard against harm.
Court applies the two-part test for negligence established by Holmes JA, requiring foreseeability and the taking of reasonable steps.
Court applied the test for negligence as enunciated by Holmes JA, requiring foreseeability and failure to take reasonable steps to guard against harm.
Applied to set out the test for negligence based on reasonable foreseeability and preventability of damage.
Cited for the trite test for establishing negligence based on reasonable foreseeability and reasonable preventability of damage and failure to act accordingly.
Cited for the classic test of negligence articulated by Holmes JA: a person is negligent if he or she fails to take reasonable steps to guard against…
Applied for the test for determining negligence, namely whether a diligens paterfamilias would foresee the reasonable possibility of injury and take reasonable…